First off, FOSS Patents posts scores of in depth reports on global cases every month. If you think citing one example of a possible outcome that didn’t immediately occur lets you confidently state that nothing Mueller writes is reliable, you need to get serious.

Also, if you say things like "stretching theories to one extreme side of the argument" you can’t then cite Graklaw, a one sided propaganda site that only argues a single extremist line of Google’s talking points, contradicting itself as much as Google’s own hypocrisy does.

Google bots like yourself attack Mueller because he cuts through the "open" rhetoric bandied about by Eric Schmidt and the company’s blatant disregard for every other company’s IP while attempting to abuse any patents it can obtain itself.

Mueller is a paid troll, who earns his money by generating click bait for whichever company pays him. Not too hot on declaring his interests while doing so, unfortunately. It wouldn't surprise me if "Corrections" was in fact the man himself. He had a soft spot for Groklaw also.

Also, Java SE and DalvikVM are designed differently, where one use a stack without fixed register count or width, the other is replicating the real hardware approach of a fixe count and width of register and a set of ASM instructions. For the java performance test, Intel needed a new compiler, an OS running natively on the platform, some special lib, a recompiled version of JavaVM with those special lib and a java test apps that can only run on this JavaVM setup. I don't say It can't be done, I just say Google got a very long road ahead to fully update their environment before developers could harvest every benefits of a 64bit platforms. They already can't tap every ARMv7 current feature from inside the DalvikVM. Google approach just look like Microsoft one as they just keep multiplying new runtimes environment: Win32, Win64, and every iteration of .NET since.

I see. That said, silicon vendors like Qualcomm do maintain their own builds of Dalvik which are more closely tailored to their chips compared to the AOSP Dalvik (see here for example http://www.anandtech.com/show/7517/google-nexus-5-review/2), and those tuned versions of Dalvik are what ultimately end up in most devices.

I see. That said, silicon vendors like Qualcomm do maintain their own builds of Dalvik which are more closely tailored to their chips compared to the AOSP Dalvik (see here for example http://www.anandtech.com/show/7517/google-nexus-5-review/2), and those tuned versions of Dalvik are what ultimately end up in most devices.

Silicon vendor can tweak their own builds of Dalvik to maximize performance, but they can't change the specs inside the VM, Dalvik and ART are 32bit VM only, the same way you can always port an emulator or a VM like Dosbox on a new platform and got some performance gain, but apps running within Dosbox are still 16 bit apps even if Dosbox is compiled to run on a 64 bit intel chips. Same principle applies to Dalvik and ART. In all case, there is a performance taxes for using VM.

Maybe Google develops Chrome for high-end smartphones and leaves Android for the rest. In their 'crisis' meeting, I can imagine Samsung deliberating over whether to take their chances with Chrome or break away with Tizen.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."- African proverb

One of the many things I've learned from Mr Mueller is that in tech there really is only one good guy, one company above all reproach. Only one company he's never had a bad thing to say about in his blog. Only one company that truly believes in "Don't be evil", that operates completely above board at all times. That company is Microsoft. All others, Apple included, are flawed in his view.

EDIT: Maybe two angelic companies as I can't find any complaint whatsoever about Oracle either. What a coincidence.

Yes and Al Jazeera never calls Obama a Kenyan tyrant. So they must be biased.

Mueller is a paid troll, who earns his money by generating click bait for whichever company pays him. Not too hot on declaring his interests while doing so, unfortunately. It wouldn't surprise me if "Corrections" was in fact the man himself. He had a soft spot for Groklaw also.

A troll is somebody who posts online just to rile people up. So no that’s not true of Mueller.

Clearly, you seem to think any string of words shooting from your mouth is legitimate. I don’t agree. You sound as intellectually bankrupt as most of the fomenting rage clowns who follow PJ’s increasing ridiculous rants on Groklaw.

Yes and Al Jazeera never calls Obama a Kenyan tyrant. So they must be biased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corrections

You sound as intellectually bankrupt as most of the fomenting rage clowns who follow PJ’s increasing ridiculous rants on Groklaw.

Ummm... AFAIK PJ hasn't posted to Groklaw in a few months now, so no worries about her rant count increasing.

As for Al Jazeera they've had a complaint or two about Obama and US policy so no idea why you thought that supported your point. On the other hand I'll challenge you to find even a single sentence disparaging Microsoft in any way in his years of posts at FOSSPatents.Edited by Gatorguy - 12/5/13 at 12:25pm

Not misinterpretation of fair use but instead copyrightability. According to reports the Appeals Court isn't questioning "fair use" at this point but instead whether API's can be copyrighted in the first place. If it rules they can be then the next step would apparently be another trial by the original court to determine if Google properly made "fair use" of the copyrighted material.

By the way this appeal is still vaguely attached to Oracle's patent infringement claims. If not for the original patent complaints Oracle could not have appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Wassup?

Alsup.

Alsup appears to have used the points used in fair use cases (Sony and Sega) to rule on the validity of Oracle's copyright, as was noted by Federal Circuit Judge Plager who was reported to have said repeatedly, that Alsup was confused or misunderstood the law.

Google's attorney was asked to stop citing the Sony and Sega fair use cases as they did not relate to the issue at hand, i.e. the validity of copyright.

Any issues regarding patents were withdrawn long ago.

Edited by hill60 - 12/5/13 at 12:29pm

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

A troll is somebody who posts online just to rile people up. So no that’s not true of Mueller.
Click bait requires having ads to benefit from. FOSS Patents doesn’t, so that’s not true.
Clearly, you seem to think any string of words shooting from your mouth is legitimate. I don’t agree. You sound as intellectually bankrupt as most of the fomenting rage clowns who follow PJ’s increasing ridiculous rants on Groklaw.

Troll (noun): a person who submits a deliberately provocative posting.
Click Bait: any content or feature, within a website, designed specifically to gain attention or encourage others to link to the website.

Paid PR .ne. objective analysis or reporting. Mueller has form making controversial assertions and not attributing financial interest while doing so. And in retrospect, getting things royally wrong along the way, as I've cited here and which simple searches on the Internet ably demonstrate. It's a direct effect of his own business model. But thanks for telling me what I think, and having had 35 years in the software industry, as being recognised by you as achieving intellectual bankruptcy.

Chrome Apps do not feature in this case, but looks like Marc Andressen said some prophetic things about Windows becoming a layer of badly debugged device drivers back in the mid 1990s when the scripting language was called LocoScript. Now that's foresight, 20 years ahead of its eventual realisation. Android may become the same thing...

Troll (noun): a person who submits a deliberately provocative posting.
Click Bait: any content or feature, within a website, designed specifically to gain attention or encourage others to link to the website.

Paid PR .ne. objective analysis or reporting. Mueller has form making controversial assertions and not attributing financial interest while doing so. And in retrospect, getting things royally wrong along the way, as I've cited here and which simple searches on the Internet ably demonstrate. It's a direct effect of his own business model. But thanks for telling me what I think, and having had 35 years in the software industry, as being recognised by you as achieving intellectual bankruptcy.

Chrome Apps do not feature in this case, but looks like Marc Andressen said some prophetic things about Windows becoming a layer of badly debugged device drivers back in the mid 1990s when the scripting language was called LocoScript. Now that's foresight, 20 years ahead of its eventual realisation. Android may become the same thing...

So you got any facts to back up your opinions?

Perhaps a transcript of the case, showing the parts you claim Mueller misreported.

It seems the case will be overturned due to Alsup confusing fair use with copyright validity in his ruling much as Mueller's opinion pointed out months ago

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

I've wondered if the likes of LG and Samsung largely went into the mobile handset business on their own as the other big names started getting slaughtered. People like Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson, and so forth, started drawing down their supply chain, leaving people like LG and Samsung with production lines churning out parts that were not being bought by anyone else.

So, you have all this inventory and production lines that still haven't been fully paid for. If they invest $1 billion in a line with an expectation of having it paid in 10 years, but they're six years in and those they were expecting to buy the product suddenly stop buying ... well... not hard to see the math there.

Maybe it's all just an exercise in cost recovery for Samsung...

Just my thoughts.

What are you talking about? LG and Samsung didn't pop up overnight and start making handsets the other day. They've been making them for years.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

The appeal is a bit of a hop, skip and jump, with Oracle trying to assert that APIs are copyrightable entities, then if they prevail asking the court to rule on fair use, and then hoping the end result leads to some form of royalty stream. Nothing to do with Chrome Apps of course, which is the red herring in the base article.

In the final analysis, my personal guess is that Oracle will waste money on lawyers and see no related income at the end of this process. And that Mueller will get it wrong, as he did last time. Time will tell.

I'm just wondering - aren't any court wins for Oracle against Google at this point just pyrrhic victories? Google already had years to milk the profits out of Android and as someone pointed out, Google has been working on moving Android to a platform that doesn't infringe on Java. So all Google has to do is stall the proceedings as much as possible to gain the maximum mileage out of Java-based Android before moving on to the non-infringing version of Android. So Oracle will at most get damages which Google can afford to pay given all the profits they have milked out of Android.

So it appears that the strategy being employed by Google and Samsung is as follows:

1) Infringe on intellectual property and get to market faster.
2) Milk as much profit out of infringement as possible while the lawsuits take years to go through courts.
3) Move on to the next intellectual property infringement as soon as the court judgement on #1 is finalized.
4) Pay monetary damages for #1 (which will be peanuts compared to the profits from #2).
5) Rinse and repeat.

So I am not sure how any court losses on intellectual property infringement would actually be damaging to Google at this point, unless the court mandates the disgorgement of profits which is highly unlikely (the bar is set too high for this type of punishment).

It's going to be difficult to award damages since Google doesn’t profit off of Android directly, the OS is free.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

The appeal is a bit of a hop, skip and jump, with Oracle trying to assert that APIs are copyrightable entities, then if they prevail asking the court to rule on fair use, and then hoping the end result leads to some form of royalty stream. Nothing to do with Chrome Apps of course, which is the red herring in the base article.

In the final analysis, my personal guess is that Oracle will waste money on lawyers and see no related income at the end of this process. And that Mueller will get it wrong, as he did last time. Time will tell.

Actually "the case" as in the ongoing appeals court case which is occurring now in which Federal Circuit Judge Plager was reported to have said repeatedly, that Alsup was confused or misunderstood the law, which negates most of the opinions in your links.

Don't bother linking to that Groklaw site, ever since SCO ended when they had some sort of relevance, it descended into a downward spiral of self absorbed, self-righteous circlejerkery.

The crap that is posted there post-SCO is worthless trash.

​Oracle don't care about the money, this is about bending Google over their own hypocrisy and ripping out Android's proprietary heart by enforcing a gpl licence.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Imagine if, at the end of the day, someone could claim exclusive rights to strings like "int fork();". Would one have to look up a list of method signatures to avoid every time one writes a library? Would projects like the BSDs or GNU/Linux be in trouble for appropriating the unix API, much of which originated with AT&T's unix implementation?

The appeal is a bit of a hop, skip and jump, with Oracle trying to assert that APIs are copyrightable entities, then if they prevail asking the court to rule on fair use, and then hoping the end result leads to some form of royalty stream. Nothing to do with Chrome Apps of course, which is the red herring in the base article.

In the final analysis, my personal guess is that Oracle will waste money on lawyers and see no related income at the end of this process. And that Mueller will get it wrong, as he did last time. Time will tell.

I tend to agree that you have to take what is said with a grain of salt especially when someone have a business relationship with either side of a discussion.

Mueller is not a lawyer, but he was doing as many business people were doing when watching these cases which was interrupting what was being said and presented and trying to draw conclusions, right or wrong. He also was providing an expert opinion base on all your years of experience dealing with similar things. I would say he was more right than wrong and the thing he could not predict and no one can ahead of time is how a judge or jury will rule until it happens. Unless your talking about the judge in the Apple Anti-trust case where they make their opinion known up front.

Now I did look at groklaw website, and they are lawyers and they were attacking Mueller base on their understanding of the law. They was basically saying that he was wrong for various legal reason not because he had no idea what he was talking about or that he was being paid for by Oracle or M$. By the way he consults for them, and they hire him for a reason, and most likely it was not because they knew he would be following this case and he would then spread miss information. In this case it make no sense to Mueller to side with Oracle and put out statements with make Google look bad and Oracle look good. There is no financial incentive on either side in the public's eye on the outcome of this case.

If you think otherwise I would like to hear how you think Oracle is some how benefiting from Mueller statement about the case. I give you that Mueller may benefit from making comments which is then linked all over the place. His name become well know thus you could make money from that fact. But that is no different than any person out there who choose to talk about a hot topic. he could as well choosing to focus on why Google/Android was in their rights and still achieved the same end result. But you seem to think that Oracle/M$ are paying him to be a month piece for them so they can benefit somehow from the outcome of this case.

Just because groklaw said Mueller was wrong on various specific points does not mean for a second they are correct either. As it may turn out Google could loose in the end and Sun/Oracle could prevail, if that happens who was right and wrong. Also, they made their comments after the fact, his were in real time as it was happening so his opinions were base on what was known at that point in time. Groklaw, made analysis after the fact with knowledge after Mueller made his statements, you also would see that Mueller change his tune a few times as more information came public. It the risk you take for making your opinion known before all the fact are out in the open.

I have some experience in both legal matters as well as IP issues and Mueller did a pretty good job of breaking it down all the technical and legal issues. I would also say most lawyers I met do not understand the technical/technology issues. Unless they came from a technical background and many IP lawyer do, but still do not fully understand the technical issue around these kinds of cases. I tend to lean toward a layman interpretation over a lawyer since lawyer tend to look at case like this one dimensional.

This is some of the most biased and uninformed journalism I've seen in a long time. What you have here is someone taking two completely separate topics and sensationalizing them into something deceptive.

ART is the solution to the issues with Oracle. It's already in place on the new Nexus devices. It's a native solution that solves the Java VM issues and will cause Android apps to run much more smoothly.

The Chrome packaged apps are something that Google has been working on for a long time. It was only a matter of time before they showed up on the mobile versions of Chrome as well. They are not in any way some sort of last ditch effort to save the platform from patent trolls as this article has suggested.

Daniel Dilger should be ashamed to have his name associated with a misleading article like this. I get that this is a website for Apple news, but deceptive and biased articles like this seriously damage its credibility.

ART is the solution to the issues with Oracle. It's already in place on the new Nexus devices. It's a native solution that solves the Java VM issues and will cause Android apps to run much more smoothly.

You sir are mistaken. ART offer is the same VM runtime and run the same Java based apps targeted for Dalvik, the only difference is instead of compiling the apps at runtime, it pre-interprets the bytecode at installation, but it doesn't neglect VM performances taxes on I/O found on those kind of solution.

"Sun Develops A Licensing Regime To Foster A Community AndEnsure Compatibility
Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and thecorresponding packages, Oracle encourages their use by others%u2014both avast community of programmers writing clever apps and businesses
developing proprietary and competing products. To accommodate allcomers, Sun/Oracle offers three different licenses:(1)The General Public License (%u201CGPL%u201D) is free of charge, butsubject to a strict%u2014and legally binding%u2014obligation..."

Case: 13-1021 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 02/11/2013

It's truly astonishing and bizarre. I guess Google just really likes the Apache Software License but has some grudge against the GPL. They did the same thing with Linux, some of the important parts of Android aren't under the GPL as they are in Linux...

"Sun Develops A Licensing Regime To Foster A Community AndEnsure Compatibility
Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and thecorresponding packages, Oracle encourages their use by others%u2014both avast community of programmers writing clever apps and businesses
developing proprietary and competing products. To accommodate allcomers, Sun/Oracle offers three different licenses:(1)The General Public License (%u201CGPL%u201D) is free of charge, butsubject to a strict%u2014and legally binding%u2014obligation..."

Case: 13-1021 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 02/11/2013

It's truly astonishing and bizarre. I guess Google just really likes the Apache Software License but has some grudge against the GPL. They did the same thing with Linux, some of the important parts of Android aren't under the GPL as they are in Linux...

Anyhow.

What Google don't like about the GPL is that it would make all of Android truly open, thus exposing their hypocritical, marketing lies.

It would loosen their iron grip over the Open Handset Alliance, they would lose control.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

What Google don't like about the GPL is that it would make all of Android truly open, thus exposing their hypocritical, marketing lies.

It would loosen their iron grip over the Open Handset Alliance, they would lose control.

Well, now we're splitting hairs, though. This is treading into Stallman type extremism, isn't it? What do you mean by "truly open"? The source code for Dalvik is open source, it's under the ASL. The libraries for Android development are, I'm sure, under the ASL. Meaning you can fork the Android API, I'm guessing.

What's the real problem here? It's not like Google isn't releasing the source code. I dunno where I stand on this.

Everything important is open source, it's the licensing specifics. Anything not open sourced could be, I'm sure. This has gotta rank as the stupidest lawsuit ever, becuause they're BOTH open source licenses. Is it possible that Google didn't know about the GPL option or something? Why did they pass right over that and go right to "re-implementing" Java? I don't get the downside you mention about the OHA.

Personally, I like to code in Java, and the best outcome here would be for Google to pay Oracle x number of dollars per, err, something. Dalvik is open source, so I guess per handset or something...? However, it shouldn't be a cash cow for Oracle, but, I guess that FRAND business -- something reasonable. I don't think Dalvik itself is in legal jeopardy..? Even if it, and Google withdrew the source code, I'm sure someone would just re-implement it. Kinda weird situation, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Must leave the handset manufacturers in a pickle.

Whatever's best for Java is what I want. This puts me, unfortunately, completely opposed to what Google has done :(

Well, now we're splitting hairs, though. This is treading into Stallman type extremism, isn't it? What do you mean by "truly open"? The source code for Dalvik is open source, it's under the ASL. The libraries for Android development are, I'm sure, under the ASL. Meaning you can fork the Android API, I'm guessing.

What's the real problem here? It's not like Google isn't releasing the source code. I dunno where I stand on this.

Everything important is open source, it's the licensing specifics. Anything not open sourced could be, I'm sure. This has gotta rank as the stupidest lawsuit ever, becuause they're BOTH open source licenses. Is it possible that Google didn't know about the GPL option or something? Why did they pass right over that and go right to "re-implementing" Java? I don't get the downside you mention about the OHA.

Personally, I like to code in Java, and the best outcome here would be for Google to pay Oracle x number of dollars per, err, something. Dalvik is open source, so I guess per handset or something...? However, it shouldn't be a cash cow for Oracle, but, I guess that FRAND business -- something reasonable. I don't think Dalvik itself is in legal jeopardy..? Even if it, and Google withdrew the source code, I'm sure someone would just re-implement it. Kinda weird situation, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Must leave the handset manufacturers in a pickle.

Whatever's best for Java is what I want. This puts me, unfortunately, completely opposed to what Google has done :(

A one-time payout might be good for Oracle but bad for Java.

Under a GPL all of Android would become open, all the proprietary, closed parts that Google, Samsung, HTC and other members of the "open" handset alliance have added and will become available to roll into Java.

"Welcomed back to the fold" in Oracle's words.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

"Sun Develops A Licensing Regime To Foster A Community And Ensure Compatibility

Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and the corresponding packages, Oracle encourages their use by others%u2014both a vast community ofprogrammers writing clever apps and businesses developing proprietary and competing products. To accommodate all comers, Sun/Oracle offers three different licenses:

(1) The General Public License (%u201CGPL%u201D) is free of charge..."

The Appeals Court ruled a couple hours ago that Java would in fact be eligible for copyright. As such the Oracle/Google case has been remanded for a trial on whether Google had "fair use", which would be my personal guess. The Appeals Court declined to rule on that.